Editorials

Patriarchy’s gatekeepers

On the morrow of the celebrations of the International Women’s Day, it would be interesting to reflect on who exactly have been the gatekeepers of the patriarchal order so condescendingly oppressive to the idea of female emancipation through much of human history. Indeed, in a hyperbolic way, there is so much similarity between insurgency and the feminist movement and for that matter other related notions such as patriarchy. They are all, in a profound sense, “a state of mind” first and then only a temporal presence. That is to say, the substances of these notions are more important than their forms. Sadly, the tendency has always been to identify them with their forms mostly, and little or nothing with their substances. The result is flawed strategies in tackling these problems thus ensuring their perpetuation. On the question of insurgency, this needs little elaboration as so many have said this in as many words. This acknowledgement of the nonphysical aspect of insurgency is inherent in statements after statements by political leaders, academics and even a former chief of the army staff, that the final solution to insurgency has got to be political rather than military. The military component of the solution effort is just to keep the pitch of the insurrection within control so that the civil administration is able to continue discharging its vital duties of governance. At this moment, such a final solution seems far away and the problem, as well as its solution continues overwhelmingly to take a military visage. Still, although a military engagement remains inevitable, it would be a fallacy to come to the conclusion that there is a final military solution to insurgency.

It is however on the question of the feminist movement as it is understood and interpreted in Manipur, and the patriarchal order that it challenges, which deserve more discussions. Because these are “states of mind”, they can easily cross physical boundaries within which they are traditionally confined. Hence, a man can be a feminist at heart, believing truly in female emancipation, as much as a woman can be a defender of the oppressive patriarchal values. Little documentation has been done yet, but it is a knowledge ingrained into our society that in the nearly universal tension between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, the former always comes across as the gatekeeper of the patriarchal order. Only if the daughter-in-law conforms volitionally to patriarchy’s norm – which often is the case as she too would see the patriarchal order as “common sense” having probably been raised by parents who too have internalised the patriarchal order – would this tension be resolved, otherwise this norm would be forced before the matter is settled. A good daughter-in-law hence is somebody who adores her husband to the extent of subservience, reveres her in-laws, apart from being a biological washing machine, dish washer, rice cooker, microwave oven, children tutor etc. In many families, she is also somebody who is expected to be contented and happy within the confines of the four walls of her husband’s house. The “Sati” is not about feminism at all, but about acceptance of the hegemony of the patriarchal order.

The oppressed man is much more oppressive on his kind. In his preface to Frantz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth”, Jean Paul Satre calls this a self-hate syndrome. In reference to the colonised mind, he explains that the oppressed detests his self-image so much that he would inflict cruelty on anybody else who shares this self-image, much more than their common oppressor master himself would. The patriarchal order has also been a coloniser of the mind. It has successfully dehumanised the woman so much so that instead of understanding and sympathising, the mother-in-law has often been the one cruellest to the daughter-in-law, more so if the latter is non-conforming to their common oppressor – the patriarchal order. This same visage is often what the Meira Paibis put on too. Our so called emancipated arts and academics too are not free from the hangovers of this patriarchal syndrome. The provision in the traditional feudal Meitei society where the willingness of a convict to be “humiliated” by covering himself with a phanek to win a pardon, is often portrayed as a respect and empowerment of the feminine gender by the social order then. In reality the symbol is for just the opposite. It instead says that the woman has come to agree she is subhuman and that wearing her dress would dehumanise anybody else. Since in this case it is a convict, the unwritten subtext is, in this social hierarchy, she acknowledges she is even below the convict. This cannot be by any stretch of imagination, an assertion of strength or emancipation.

Print

Latest News

IMPHAL | Mar 20
President of All India Congress Committee (AICC), Rahul Gandhi has assured that the Congress party will never allow the “unique identity, culture, history of the people of Manipur” to be jeopardised under any circumstances.
Rahul Gan.....

THOUBAL| Mar 20
Even though seven individuals had obtained registration forms, no candidates have filed their election forms for the Outer Manipur (ST) parliamentary constituency elections yet. More importantly, the Returning Officer had issued a notif.....

IMPHAL | Mar 20
On the occasion of Yaoshang festival, state top officials Governor Najma Heptullah and chief minister Nongthombam Biren Singh and Speaker Yumnam Khemchand has extended their heartiest greetings to the people of Manipur.
Governor on h.....

About Us

IFP Leichin and Imphal Free Press are autonomous associates sharing contents. IFP Leichin runs this web portal and Imphal Free Press is a respected English daily published from Imphal. Intellectual proprietorship of all articles published on this website, except those sourced from Imphal Free Press will be with IFP Leichin. Intellectual proprietorship of articles sourced from Imphal Free Press will be with Imphal Free Press.